Get project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response includes a revision ETag, lists the contents of the estate model, and notes the concurrency behavior with update_project, going beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and addressing, the second describes the response contents, and the third gives a workflow hint. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, how to address the resource, and how to safely use the response with update_project. An agent has enough context to invoke and handle the result correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both org and ref, including the id/slug format. The description only restates that the project is addressed by id or URL slug, adding no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a project's full JSON document and revision ETag'), and clarifies addressing by id or URL slug. It differentiates from siblings like list_projects and export_project by emphasizing 'full JSON document' and the revision ETag.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context by explaining that the returned revision should be passed to update_project to prevent overwriting concurrent changes. This establishes a read-modify-write use case, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., when a summary is sufficient, use list_projects).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.